• Many governments remain cautious due to trade, security and political dependence on Washington

• Experts say short-term gains for the US could spark longer-term regional backlash

ISTANBUL 

Latin America is no stranger to US interference.

For centuries, Washington has shaped who governs, how policies are made, and whose interests come first in the region – whether through toppling governments, backing authoritarian regimes, sending troops or imposing sanctions.

The region has long grappled with how to resist Washington’s pressure without jeopardizing economic and security ties.

That dilemma has returned to the forefront since a pre-dawn US operation in Caracas ended with the capture of President Nicolas Maduro and Washington’s claim that it would temporarily “run” Venezuela.

In the days that followed, President Donald Trump escalated pressure on Colombia, Mexico and Cuba, combining threats with diplomatic outreach and economic leverage.

But despite the region’s shared memory of intervention, governments have struggled to respond with a unified voice.

At emergency discussions in forums including the UN Security Council and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), some governments backed Washington’s move in Caracas while others condemned it as a violation of sovereignty.

The operation in Caracas has opened what some see as a geopolitical Pandora’s box, heightening fears that tensions could spread beyond Venezuela.

Whether Latin American countries can respond collectively remains uncertain, given their economic and security dependence on Washington and increasingly divergent political orientations.

According to a leading Venezuelan-American scholar, the idea of a united Latin American front is “very complicated.”

From ‘pink tide’ to ‘blue wave’

The region’s political landscape has also shifted sharply in recent years. Miguel Tinker Salas, an emeritus professor of history at Pomona College in California, points to the rise of right-wing governments as a defining change.

As a result, “the forces that normally would have supported CELAC or UNASUR … are largely no longer in play,” he told Anadolu.

The shift is often described as a transition from the “pink tide” – a wave of leftist governments that rose to power in the late 1990s and early 2000s after Hugo Chavez’s victory in Venezuela – to a “blue wave” marked by the electoral success of conservative and right-leaning leaders.

Recent elections reflect that change. Right-of-center governments have taken power in countries such as Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador and Honduras, while others including Brazil, Colombia and Mexico remain under left-wing or center-left leadership.

US historian Alan McPherson, a professor at Temple University, said voters are often turning to these leaders in search of change.

“People are looking for easy, quick solutions to the problems of crime and inflation. Therefore, they are often turning to more extreme leaders to solve these problems,” he told Anadolu.

On the regional response to Venezuela, McPherson said positions are “clearly ideological.”

“These countries aren't looking at Venezuela and saying, ‘Thank God, now there's going to be fewer drugs going to the US.’ Nobody thinks this. They're essentially thinking: do we need to please the person in the White House or oppose them?”

‘Divide and conquer’: Trump’s support for right-wing

A ‘Trumpista’ wave – referring to MAGA-aligned leaders – is unfolding in the Americas.

Since his first term, Trump has backed populist-right politicians who promise tough security policies, migration crackdowns, a sharp break from leftist agendas and economic deals favoring US interests.

His closest connection is with Argentina’s President Javier Milei, whom he regards as a kindred ideological spirit. Beyond praising the Argentinian leader’s policies, the Trump administration funneled the largest US aid to the country in decades, tying a $20 billion bailout to Milei’s party winning the 2025 midterms, in an effort to “Make Argentina Great Again.”

Argentina later led a group of ten countries, including Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador, in blocking a unanimous CELAC statement condemning the US operation in Venezuela.

The country is not the only case where Trump has used US economic leverage to influence regional elections.

He backed conservative politician Nasry “Tito” Asfura during Honduras’ election campaign, pardoned former President Juan Orlando Hernandez – a member of Asfura’s National Party – and warned that US aid could be cut if Asfura lost.

“If Tito Asfura wins … we will be very supportive. If he doesn’t win, the United States will not be throwing good money after bad,” he wrote on social media.

In Chile, far-right candidate Jose Antonio Kast won a run-off to become president, ousting the centre-left government. Trump later said the candidate he endorsed “ended up winning quite easily.”

But even some left-wing leaders are increasingly pressured to come into Trump’s orbit. In Venezuela, the Chavista regime led by Maduro’s successors continue to be cooperative with Washington.

After months of public clashes, Trump and the left-wing Colombian President Gustavo Petro met at the White House this week, describing the talks as “productive” despite ideological differences. Last month, Petro told Spanish daily El Pais that diplomacy helped avert a US attack on his country.

According to Cuban-born political scientist Arturo Lopez Levy, the region’s fragmented political landscape works to Washington’s advantage.

“By policies of divide and conquer, the position of countries that want to exercise some level of autonomy is heavily affected,” he told Anadolu.

McPherson said the approach reflects broader US strategy, reflected in the 2025 National Security Strategy document, which identifies the Western Hemisphere as a core security priority, casts China as the primary long-term threat and promotes strengthening only the alliances that serve US interests.

“It essentially says that the US should be predominant in Latin America and push out powers that are not of the Americas,” he said. “That’s going to create division for Latin Americans, as countries may have to decide whether to give contracts to Chinese or American companies.”

China’s growing role

The US and China now dominate Latin America’s economic landscape, with Washington remaining the top overall partner and Beijing close behind.

China already dominates trade in much of South America, while the US remains the primary partner for Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean.

A report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) found China’s influence in maritime infrastructure is expanding, with 37 port projects across the region tied to Chinese companies.

The Panama Canal, a critical global trade route, has become a focal point of geopolitical tensions.

Recently, in what is described as a victory for Washington, a Panama court ruled to evict a Hong Kong-based company from operating two strategic ports on the canal. In a sharp rebuke, China condemned the ruling and warned that Panama would “pay a heavy price” if it did not change course.

A European Parliament report from last year predicts that by 2035, China may overtake the US as Latin America’s most important trading partner.

For now, however, many countries remain heavily dependent on US assistance for counter-narcotics, crime prevention and defense, while Trump also uses tariffs as economic leverage.

That dependence, McPherson said, pushes countries such as Brazil and Mexico to “be cautious in their responses.”

Salas said reliance on US export markets also limits how far countries can confront Washington politically.

But he added that China’s growing role gives governments alternatives.

“You’re not going to convince Argentina to stop selling soybeans or wheat to China, or Brazil to stop selling its agricultural products. The US is not offering a market for them,” he said.

What comes next in the hemisphere?

Russia is another player in the region, though its trade footprint remains far smaller than that of the US or China.

Historically aligned with left-leaning governments, Moscow’s ties with countries such as Venezuela and Cuba focus mainly on security and defense cooperation.

Since the Venezuela operation, Trump has been suggesting that Cuba’s government will fall and further pressuring the Caribbean island nation with a newly signed executive order imposing tariffs on countries that send oil to Havana.

Already facing a deep economic crisis, Cuba is expected to struggle further after losing Venezuelan oil – its main energy source.

In a show of support, Russian Interior Minister Vladimir Kolokoltsev visited Havana in late January. Media reports say a Russian cargo plane, typically used to carry military equipment, landed in Cuba recently.

Cuba’s foreign minister also traveled to Beijing on Thursday, where China pledged “support and assistance.”

According to Levy, while many Latin American nations seem to be cooperating with Washington for now, the region is likely to see growing resistance to US interventionist policies.

“The cost of those policies is very high for Latin Americans,” he said. “The type of policy that the US is developing under Trump towards the region, and the Marco Rubio line, is a line that will become very counterproductive in the short and medium term.”

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said last month that the US “would love to see” a regime change in Cuba.

“In the long term, forced foreign policies will face major limitations,” Levy warned.